|
Post by MChewk on Jan 13, 2006 6:13:38 GMT -6
Bryce, I believe your ideas/thoughts are in tune with mine...while I may sound a bit over bearing when it comes to BMPs I am just frustrated at the whole process/scenario. I am a BMP fan ...as I see the possible potential in helping trapping. BUT just get frustrated at what has went down. Being involved from the start of this process I saw what NTA and FTA went through as far as communication, timeliness, and truthfullness. I admire 35s positive thoughts on this and he is probably more in tune with behind the scenes info than I. Guys I want the best tools and options open for trappers. I really don't think the public really knows or cares how an animal is captured nor what its damage score was. They only care that it WAS captured. IF the BMP study could alter its PR image(?) to one of providing info to readers of how traps work in IDEAL conditions for a species. AND not dwell on damage scores ...unless the reader REALLY wants to know...we might be able to move on with support from NTA FTA and trappers??? Pipe dream?...I know.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 13, 2006 7:42:53 GMT -6
I doubt if tc35 is more in tune with the "scene" then the FTA people on the committee, or asked to sit in on the committee.
The coon bmps need to bwe tossed. Why through good money after bad. I see nothing in them that needs to be or SHOULD be saved. Its faulty protocal and its faulty results.
Start over. Do it right. ASK coon trappers that ACTUALLY trap more than 2-3 coon a year. USE THE FREAKIN' water!!!!!!!!!!!! USE COMMON SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll speak out and fight against these coon bmps until the day they ARRE tossed aside- and that day will come.
The coyote bmps recieved widespread support from COYOTE trappers.
The coon bmps recieved NO support from production coon trappers. The only support is coming from those that DO NOT target coon.
BMP coon committee- wake up. You did bad. Admit it and start afresh.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jan 19, 2006 19:59:59 GMT -6
I'm more in tune than you think tman. I would rate the coon bmps as maybe rushed into action for various reasons, but I will also disagree with anyone that thinks the injury scores for coon should be anything different from what all others are held to. To appease the tool and give false data when compaired to any other tool for a species. The injury scores are a big part of the overall score, just as is efficantcy scores a big part, but a injury threshold must be maintained for ALL tools for ALL species or your not being fair to all tools for a species either. BMP ( Best MGMT Practices). Mchewk the injury scores would be the first thing to look at to combat the anti's, their not going to run ad campaigns against efficancty of footholds, and we need to support the tool with hard data and show what we use is as good as their long touted rubber jawed traps that since inception has been there only positive message for traps.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 20, 2006 7:33:33 GMT -6
Please tell me how you are in the loop on the coon bmp protocals, data and results.
blind obedience to what the vet council demands we do, isn't going to happen by trappers. I could care less WHAT the vet council (a group opposed to trapping )cares or thinks.
Let them clip poodles.
Let me trap.
The Olson Scale SHOULD have been modified, SHOULD have been adapted to the SPECIFIC animals- exactly like the TRAPPERS involved wanted. Have you forgotten that point? TRAPPERS wanted to change it. WHY? common sense. Unlike what the liberal left vets council thinks- a boy is NOT a pig nor a dog and a coon ain't a coyote. Bottom line, there was inadequete input, and worse yet IGNORING any input that didn't fit their box. And second problem was "experienced" trappers that weren't. The whole shebang was cobbled. I don't know who the trappers involved were, could care less, but would gladly debate with them here or anywhere- HOW and WHY they did what they did. But as in every point that has come up, they have been voted down.
Points:
1) the olson scale, an arbitrary value systems that HAS NO BASIS IN SCIENCE, SHOULD BE CANNED
2) The coon bmp committee needs to accept the fact they FU, and start over and this time get their heads out of their collective arses and do it right.
the olson scale is worthless, the protocal is junk, and the data is so flawed its meaningless.
There is nothing worth saving in the coon bmp. It has been flawed from start to finish. Why you insist that ALL bmps were written by those that walk on water is beyond me. Like ANY data- USE what can be proved to be accurate- DISCARD that which is PROVED to be flawed. To do any less, is simply unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jan 27, 2006 16:52:42 GMT -6
1) the olson scale, an arbitrary value systems that HAS NO BASIS IN SCIENCE, SHOULD BE CANNED
You can not have an injury score system based totally on science because the species can not speak. What it needs to be is one of common sense and one that has a background in trap testing which the olsen scale has. Name a system you want and what background it has in trap testing? Sure trappers would have liked "looser" scoring values and others wanted much stringant values. I don't see a big problem with the scoring system used. It has a background in other trap testing. Also you can not change the "value"/standard for each species or you have no bench mark and you have zero creditabilty by having the scores fit the proceived "need". No one ever stated or "most" ever thought every trap would pass the BMP criteria for every species, without adding into special setting techniques, which the majority would not want. If you can agree on certain techniques as critical to a passing score then so be it and label it as such in the final draft. You would have just as much complaining from that as well, but I would see that as being far more creditable with the general public than fitting the scores to the speices.
I never stated walk on water about any of this, but the whole study "MUST" be creditable or you may as well not started any of it, to loose any creditabilty on this matter would be very bad for trappers as a whole in the present and future. Nothing will ever be 100% perfect and as time goes on I'm sure their will be changes in some of it, but overall the foundation of a benchmark is what brings a pile of creditabilty to the whole thing. Without that you have little to go on.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 27, 2006 19:36:26 GMT -6
If you have to accept ALL as credible, when it obviously is not- then I'll accept your mandate that ALL bmps must be suspect. Because to accept and PROMOTE such garbage as the coon bmps, I'd have to lie through my teeth, and I will not do that.
There is zero good in the coon bmps, and thats that.
I seriously could care less what a bunch of biologists and vets come up with. Thier reasoning has no basis in fact, hell, it has little basis in fantasy.
To blindly stick with one scale, and an arbitray one AT BEST, makes no sense to me.
Please, tell me again how the olsen scale was developed and how it has a history with trapline testing.
Beyond the current bmps, of course. The scale was NOT developed for trapping. It was FORCED down our throats. If the trappers and biologists who opposed it, and Mr Hamilton told me many did and "fought for a different scale" had any cajones, they would have stood firm.
I don't know how it could be much simpler- GIGO.
Until the day I draw my last dying breath, I'll continue to speak out against the coon bmps at ever demo I give, anywhere I can.
|
|
|
Post by SgtWal on Jan 28, 2006 12:17:58 GMT -6
Here are the standards set in the EU agreement. Can we work with these or are they too tight? Do any of our traps and/or traps and methods meet these standards?
2.2. Parameters
2.2.1. In the evaluation of whether or not a restraining trapping method meets these Standards the welfare of an animal that is trapped must be assessed.
2.2.2. The parameters must include indicators of behaviour and injury listed in paragraphs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2.
2.2.3. The magnitude of responses for each of those parameters must be assessed.
2.3. Indicators
2.3.1. Behavioral indicators recognised as indicators of poor welfare in trapped wild animals are:
(a) self-directed biting leading to severe injury (self-mutilation); (b) excessive immobility and unresponsiveness.
2.3.2. Inquiries recognised as indicators of poor welfare in trapped wild animals are:
(a) fracture; (b) joint luxation proximal to the carpus or tarsus; (c) severance of a tendon or ligament; (d) major periosteal abraison; (e) severe external haemorrhage or haemorrhage into an internal cavity; (f) major skeletal muscle degeneration; (g) limb ischaemia; (h) fracture of a permanent tooth exposing pulp cavity; (i) ocular damage including corneal laceration; (j) spinal cord injury; (k) severe internal organ damage; (l) myocardial degeneration; (m) amputation; (n) death.
2.4. Thresholds
A restraining trapping method would meet the Standards if: (a) the number of specimens of the same target species from which the data are derived is at least20; and (b) at least 80 % of these animals show none of the indicators listed in paragraphs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2.
wayne
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jan 28, 2006 16:48:25 GMT -6
thats the thing- so many of those injuries- like myocardial degeneration; and fracture of a permanent tooth exposing pulp cavity; coon will damage a tooth chewing debris. Is that a trap problem? No. ]/b] are unrealistic. and what exactly does myocardial degeneration;
The regs are too tight for all species. It was for good reason trappers argued (unsuccessfully against the...thats right...the infamous vet council... for different standards.
|
|
|
Post by blakcoyote on Jan 29, 2006 13:45:24 GMT -6
That says alot.From what I've been seeing,is we're in the same boat we were before this BMP started,now the BMP's just added to the circle jerk.And with many trappers willing to appease the public are getting lead by the nose,chokin down whats been fed to them for the sake of looking pc.Some are willing to give up good tools in exchange for less than productive alternatives.Trappers have always been known to be innovative,fast learners.But the one thing alot(not all)seem to be slow at learning,is,once we loose a tool,we dont get it back.IMO the BMP's are directly related to the EU,and it has everything to do with the fur ban fiasco.Some say the BMP's were started before the EU thing,call me paranoid,but that statement just leads me to think there may have been backroom dealings we were not informed about.I'm all for improvements,but this BMP business,I feel has become more of a way to restrict what we use and how we use it,just another catalyst to end trapping as we know it.A monkey on our back that will not go away,no matter how much we can prove that the process is flawed.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jan 30, 2006 12:45:04 GMT -6
The DWRC used the olsen scale for the express purpose of showing damage in trapped coyotes years back, I will get you the report if you like. It has nothing to do with BMP's it was trap testing done aside from the BMP's.
Also did the enclosed traps pass with high marks under the current scoring system? Would they fail under any system used? Were they tools developed for the express purpose of dealing with chewing in a species? Can they be set about anywere without special techniques to acheive a passing score?
Did not the inventors of these trap types do what the BMP's in a way are looking for? To design equipment that will solve certain public image problems associated with trapping? No one wants to enter into the relm that better equipment for certain species can be achieved, they want to bash the process and discount the efforts of some who have built good additions to the trapping tools catagory.
It is no different with coyotes either, laminations, offset jaws, and proper swiveling have made strides in how coyotes can be restrained with less damage as well. These are all benefits for trappers not negatives. The old mentality of what we have is good enough won't keep trapping alive in states in the future, and by proving out new tools that show concern for animal welfare will keep trapping strong and viable for many years to come.
The adage that kids can't afford this new equipment just doesn't pan out, how many have x boxes, cell phones, ipods and the such? If a big group of kids were really interested in trapping they can get started at moderate cost even with buying used "updated" equipment in relative terms of trapping equipment cost versus other hobbies. The problem is more and more kids get disconnected from outdoor forms all the time, and that trappers and orgs must promote trapping to these kids or in 20 years trapping numbers will be so low, the BMP's or any of it won't much matter, our ranks will be at all time lows if the trend continues as such.
Black coyote were do you get restrict what you use? No one has yet to make BMP offical rules and regs. "If" some states decide to go that route what would be the differance of having the BMP language versus not having any information and that state looking to make rule changes on trapping activitys?
The BMP is flawed because why? The coon BMP? Is that your argument for a flawed BMP process? Look at IAFWA real close and tell me these people are anti trapping oriented. Not the case at all. The videos they have produced and the trapping matters workshops are very good and very pro trapping. They have some real key people who know how to handle the public in a professional manner and get trappers points across in a way that makes the general public very at ease with trappers and trapping as a activity for profit and for fun.
Remember trappers can have no input at all if they don't stay at the table of discussion or be involved in the studys. Without trapper input and working the studys this will be a very one sided deal. Some will have you think that this whole deal is run and done by anti trapping influances if that were the case the BMP's would be far different than what we have and what will be printed in the near future.
The coon BMP is flawed to some from the mear fact that the 1.5 didn't pass under any circumstances tried to date and that some want very stringant setting procedures to gain a passing score, and then testing other factors than the tool itself. Some things tried in the coon BMP failed, but the tool was the main focus in those test as I feel it should be.
I look at it as what tools are best for each species over a broad range of setting protocol, what "traps" can acheive good scores over the broadest range and setting ideals are the ones that will really shine in the BMP"s. As they should. If the tool can't perform both injury wise and eifficantly over a broad range of area and setting techniques, is it really a best managment tool? or is it something some just wanted to see get a passing score?
Again if trappers want the 1.5 to pass then follow tmans setting techniques, and have them entered into the BMP draft as the passing methods that this trap must be set under to acheive the passing score and be done with it. Yet the moaning would forever go on because you can't please all people all the time. I for one could careless how the 1.5 gets into the BMP as if it gets in it will quite some and anger others just as all of this has done since day one!
The bottom line of the BMP's is to protect trapping for the future if you loose sight of this goal then what is the point?
|
|
|
Post by SgtWal on Jan 30, 2006 14:16:29 GMT -6
Some one please define, or explain, the phrase "Protect trapping for the future". Does this mean to protect the existance of fur trapping at ANY level, or to protect trapping to insure harvests at market demand levels? There is a big difference. Protecting the ability of a few to trap a few animals annually should be easy. Protecting the ability of thousands to maintain the current harvest levels and support the current markets demands will be a tougher sell. I'm not sure these will do the job. Then I'm not sure anything will do the job these days.
wayne
|
|
|
Post by blakcoyote on Jan 30, 2006 16:33:36 GMT -6
They may be not official yet.But they are shaping our regs today,one example is the cable restraint issue in WI and MI. and one of the issues is but not only for WI. is we cant use 1x19 cable,another for MI is loop size cant close any tighter that either 4" or 4 1/2" in diameter,how many fox are you going to hold like that?And to point out,where did the BMP's actually help the trapper in MI,it just put more restrictions on how they use a tool and basically rendered it pretty much useless.Everybody should pay attention to that,because it's whats in store for all of us.
I had a trapper ask me if he thought that if we gave up footholds althogether in place of foot snares if that would shed us in a better light or not?
I'm all for improvements,all my traps I use are modified to fit my conditions.Are all trap mods necesary?I dont think so,it has alot to do with what your trapping,how your trapping,and what your check time is.
BTW,I was all for the BMPs in the beginning,but after seeing things going on,I'm real leary of them big time.And after the cable restraint issues even more so.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jan 30, 2006 17:39:19 GMT -6
Protecting the ability of thousands to maintain the current harvest levels and support the current markets demands will be a tougher sell.
Sgt that is not done through trap testing but the market itself. Fur demand both types and volume is done away from the ability of the trapper, the trapper ensures the demands are met to the best of there abilitys, aside from many outside factors.
If coons were a 100.00 ea and the only way you could trap them is with say coon cuffs, how many coon trappers would there be and how many coon cuffs would be sold? The tool isn't the real issue in what you refer to, but market demand and price being the biggest factor by far.
Black coyote, I can tell you that of which you speak is a state to state deal and not a direct issue from the IAFWA or any other. If you can't use 1x19 cable I would have no clue as to who wrote up trhat rule or why? The BMP cable restraints are tested in both 1x19 and 7x7, and I can tell you through my snaring experiance you have far less cable issues with fraying with 1x19 than 7x7 for sure. As far as fox I snared them in Iowa with a 2.5" deer stop requirement and had a large % of them alive as well, thing is fox are not hard on cable by any means, again your 4.5 requirement is a state issued deal not pressure from IAFWA I can assure you, those pressures come from within those states for changes, most likely domestic issues and how "YOUR" game dpet wants to handle the hot topic issues.
It is not about showing in a better light but the light of truth and to use what test out to be the best, we have proven the rubber jaw/versus lamination in actual testing. That hyas been dispelled through the testing without that we would still have many thinking the rubber jaw is far superior in animal comfort, which has data to back up they are no more humane than some of the other types tested.
I would say the more modifcations one does to ensure the best hold and the best "visable comfort" to the speices in question is worth it's weight as far as the public is concerned. This all leads back to empathy and as long as you show that to people we are all in a better light.
So many want to tag the BMP's as the downfall to tighter restrictions, but in truth many states adopted and have changed trapping laws in years past with nothing to go on but, recomendations and what they think will appease the non trapping public. What about the states that have zero snaring? Who came up with those state laws and why? A product of what? Certainly not a BMP issue, but public perception issue and that is how most state regs are formed. So you has reg shaping long before the BMP"s.
|
|
|
Post by blakcoyote on Jan 30, 2006 22:06:25 GMT -6
And that was my point,the truth didnt prevail.And someday your kill snares may become illegal because of the BMPs just because somebody or group has a problem with snares,so they look at the BMP approved cable restraint and the next thing you know your trading in your kill snares for CR's.The same could happen with footholds,even though #3's tested out,it maybe more PC to change the regs to using a #2 or 1.75 for you guys out west because of size and public perception.When the public looks at the BMPs all they'll see is choices,and if they all tested out,they'll see no reason why you would need bigger traps when the smaller ones worked.Like I said,I feel the way things are,we're no further ahead than we were.I thought the same thing when the BMP's started,good,we'll finally have something that will cut through all the crap.But it doesnt seem to me that it has.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 31, 2006 11:32:59 GMT -6
Bottom line- the truth wasn't even glimpsed in the coon bmps.
and trappers NEED to stop letting their rights get taken bit by bit.
To accept the coon bmps is silly because its as big a fraud as any "study" I've ever seen.
Inappropriate injury scales, faulty protocal... how can any results be taken seriously by anyone that has trapped more than 100 coon? It simply cannot be.
Hey, is it true that the bmp committee was formed from the committee that "proved" man didn't walk on the moon?
|
|
|
Post by SgtWal on Feb 1, 2006 14:56:59 GMT -6
Fur trapping exists today because it is one, a cheep way to keep populations under control. Two, there is a fair market for the resource which creats taxable income for the states. And three the fees for licenses at various levels helps keep the DNR in business. Trapping will be looked upon favoribly as long as it continues to provide the first item listed. Free population control. Once the harvest falls below that point, trapping becomes a sport and not a tool. And is then open to as many restrictions as any other sport. The $100 raccoon arguement has two flaws, One it assumes that there will be experienced trappers with enough money on hand to buy the traps, and two that they will live where the $100 raccoon are. Let me offer another sceniaro. Let's say the AR's spend a ton of money and work their butts off to cash in on the poor fur market for raccoon. Over the next ten years every state below the Great Lakes and east of the Mississippi accepts that species specific traps are the way to go for raccoon. With the current market there would be little fight from the trappers. One by one, over the period, the states change the rules. History showed that the first year after the leghold ban the number of trappers dropped by 50% in Ma. If that holds then 50% of the raccoon trappers will not trap raccoon the first season after the change. Another 25% will give up after a year of frustration with the new traps. Ten years out and the eastern and southern raccoon trappers are down by 75%. If all trappers were equal, then the harvest would drop by 75% as well. As these would be the flat, smaller, coat raccoons the market would bearly notice. All that would happen is that smalls and damaged coon, now worthless, would have a market. Now with the harvest falling for a decade and demand for raccoon growing due to lack of goods buyers near that $100 mark you spoke of for XXXL Mi. and Wi. coon. Trappers in the north are making a killing and breaking the springs on their trucks hauling all the coons. But what happens in Indiana and Kentucky? Do trappers pour back into the fields, and inundate suppliers with orders for Egg Traps? Not likely. They don't have XXXL 45 pound coon. They still have 15 pound coat coon. Where Mi. is seeing $100 each the folks down south are getting offers of $20 for xxxl coat coon. At that price few will spend the bucks to retool. In time trapping will be reduced to a minor sport. The fur harvest will fall as old trappers die off, quit in disgust, or just get too old. Young trappers, seeing trapping as a hobby, will not seek as hard for markets and will instead look at trophy furs. The high cost of traps will further reduce the number of traps a trapper has and sets. There lies the problems. Market forces drive the price of fur, and "Purest Trappers" who decry any attempt to make money from trapping could care less what fur is worth. We are killing ourselves. And the BMP process will not help stop the change. Only help grease the rails.
wayne
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Feb 1, 2006 15:33:59 GMT -6
wayne
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 1, 2006 16:37:59 GMT -6
WOW wayne you like to overanalize LOL!
Fur trapping exists today because it is one, a cheep way to keep populations under control. Two, there is a fair market for the resource which creats taxable income for the states. And three the fees for licenses at various levels helps keep the DNR in business.
I would agree with most of what you just said but, NO state is worried about the taxable income from fur, as a large majority goes unreported. Also NO state DNR is thinking or worrying about loosing license revenue from trapping or furbearer license, as more and more big game tags are being issued both resident and non resident that bring in far more dollars than a couple 1,000 fur license sales. In fact alot of good states don't woory much about them in figuring budgets because they know license sales are a direct tie with the fur market and no clear indactor of future revenue dollars.
Once the harvest falls below that point, trapping becomes a sport and not a tool. And is then open to as many restrictions as any other sport
How many states with trappers are keeping harvest levels at a good margin? Look at coon take during the fur boom and today, look at coyote,fox or whatever when prices are high more species are taken, when prices are low the populations do not fluacte accordingly, ma nature steps in and does the mange,distemper, and other factors. I think trapping has been a sport for many years as trapping license sales and the fur take would attest to under your guidlines of tool versus sport.
Trapping is one of the most restricted forms of outdoor recreation there is and has been for years. So I don't know were you get more restrictions under your sport classification. The reason trapping is more restricted is a state by state issue and deals with public perception and the people as a whole of each state.
For the sake of writing a book, my 100.00 coon scenario was one that if coons were a 100.00 ea you would have every body and there brother out trapping coons, and states with non residents would see massive sales of license sold, and no one would care if the traps cost 20.00 ea or not they would buy them up and commense to trapping coons. A pure market factor and the money to be made from the endevour. I wasn't stating any fact that states will make enclosed traps the only method, but people for the right incentive ie: high fur prices would adapt and change to make money and would kill a pile of coons to boot. Rest of what you wrote is under the assumption of current market values and not that of 100.00 coons.
Any state that lost the right to set foot traps or conibears would show the same decline and with todays current fur values maybe more than 50% and most fur I would guess would see an increase in demand due to little production over a vast area of states, but is that what we want? Certain states to loose trapping to help out the fur market?
Your last hypothetical has been happing without any BMP influance, look at trap cost in the ealry 80's and yet a scant 20 years what has happened to both fur prices and equipment cost, In the ealry 80's I could buy 1.5 for 28.00 a doz, 34.00 for victor 1.75 offsets, a dozen 110 conibears for 19.50 etc. Traps have went up 3 fold or more, fur prices have dropped and gas has risen, trucks have went up 3-4 fold, and yet fur prices remain soft.
In what you say, you can not blame that on the BMP on killing trappers it is the fur market and the cost of goods that are killing fur trapping as we know it.
Compaired to what it once was fur trapping is a minor sport in the big picture, and yet we must decide if it is worth saving or looked at in 30 years as something our grandfathers used to do. The BMP process will help trappers as seen as people who care about the resources and that use the equipment best suited for the task at hand, your not going to find many outside of trappers that really care if there is a fur market or not, so in that sense your right, but that has never been the point of the BMP, it isn't up to IAFWA to see that we have good fur markets, that is up to furriers, auction houses and general fashion trends to decide that, reguardless there will be trapping for along time to come as many species, trapping is the most cost effective way to rid human/animal conflicts, it may take a different light as ADC and the such but people in general will still demand we treat the animals with empathy, doen't matter in fur trapping or ADC that point won't change. And that is the reason for testing and having the data at hand. The foothold trap is a tool that will be used for many years to come on many species, but the testing can show what styles and sizes best is suited for the species in question. Again no reinvention of the wheel, but having the data to show the results of what effects each trap has on each species.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Feb 1, 2006 17:31:39 GMT -6
Bmps are one issue.
A piece of crap protocal tested coon bmp is another. It has little basis in reality, the protocal couldn't have done more to PROMOTE chewing than if it was designed that way.
Whats there not to understand here?
The coon bmp isn't worth the paper it isa written on, and there is no way any trapper that actually traps coon can support it. And of they do support it, then they have little idea on how to trap coon correctly.
Tough words- but the turth!y
|
|
|
Post by SgtWal on Feb 1, 2006 18:11:23 GMT -6
I mostly do ADC. I very very seldom use footholds in ADC. If the animal is to be taken alive it is a full body trap like a cage or a cable restraint type snare. If the animal is to be taken dead the kill type traps are used. The BMP is for fur trappers. Their use by ADC trappers is limited at best. To be useful at all the BMP must be useful to the fur trapper and should identify and support the use of the most EFFICIENT traps available. Any trap that is limited to baited sets, like Eggs, Griz, duffers, etc., isn't as efficient as one that can be used in blind sets also. If these traps don't happen to score the highest on the scale then the reason they are recommended should be clearly explained. If they are clearly superior in efficiency to the better scoring traps then that should be enough. When a trap is developed that scores high and is efficient it will be moved up. That makes more sense to me, and would do away with much of the bickering. No amount of facts or study will change the hard core Anti. Therefor why not just show where a trap is more effective and let the facts speak for themselves?
wayne
|
|